Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit?  If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to?  I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy?  I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card.  I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card.  And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine).  Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves).  However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter).  Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person.  Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity.  Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level.  They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks.  Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist.  Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA?  Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann?  Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas?  Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet?  Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough?  And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party?  That would be the Republican Party.  The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead.  Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time.  And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters.  She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color.  I would be naive to think otherwise.  However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed.  We want fiscal restraint.  We want to get rid of the government entitlements.  We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives.  We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree.  We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color.  It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race.  Those who are against him draw attention to his policies.  And that is the difference between the two groups.  The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.

What should Harry Reid do?

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

Over the past week or so, much has been made of a group of buyers making a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. The prominent name in this group is Rush Limbaugh. And now, the liberals are having a field day trying to discredit Rush and have the deal thrown out, even though there is no deal on the table at this time.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out and called Rush a racist, stating that he has no business being an owner in the NFL, especially since most of the players are black. They cite no evidence of racism. Rather, they only make a proclamation, knowing that just being called a racist is enough to harm anyone's reputation beyond imagination. I find this to be very ironic, coming from 2 of the most race-driven men in America today. These guys are an embarrassment to the human race.

Now, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts has come out against any Limbaugh ownership in the NFL. Why? I thought he ran a classy organization. I am not sure what kind of businessman makes this kind of decision based on no facts at all. The former coach of the Colts, Tony Dungy, has been on Rush's radio program to discuss the book that he wrote. This doesn't sound like a racist action to me. It does not sound divisive to me.

There are players out there who said that they would not play for a team owned by Limbaugh (I heard Chad Ochocinco say this, as if Rush would want this slacker on his team anyway). Well, good for them. I am sure that there are a lot of other players that would have no problem playing for Rush. He would have no problem getting good players on his team.

If Rush was a racist, why would he have Dungy on his program? Why would his chief call screener be black? Why would he even be interested in owning an NFL team, if the majority of players are black?

The man has a love for the NFL, as is quite apparent when you listen to his show. He is a Steelers fan, although I can't figure out why (Rooney is big-time Democrat who is now ambassador to Ireland, thanks to the President). And let's not forget the so-called Rooney rule, which wreaks of racism (as it does not guarantee that a job will go to the most qualified individual and it assumes that minorities cannot compete on a level playing field).

If Rush owned an NFL team, it would not be for the money that he would stand to make from it. It would be due to the fact that he likes football. He would buy a team because he wanted to win.

This whole thing has nothing to do with racism. The same people that are out there decrying divisiveness and discrimination now find themselves doing those exact same things in opposition to Limbaugh. Hypocrisy? You bet.

And where is the media? Are they reporting the facts? No, they are not. Rather, they are parroting the quotes that are attributed to Rush, but have been shown to be fabricated or taken extremely out of context.

As far as I am concerned, I think this would be good for the Rams and the NFL. Commsissioner Goodell - Don't be a coward and cave in to the hate-mongers. Don't buy into this. Prove to everyone that you have the moral courage to stand up to these haters and that you won't be bullied or strong-armed to make a bone-headed move for you and the league.

Also, the St. Louis Rams are a company. They should be able to sell to whoever they want. the league should have no say in this whatsoever. But since the NFL has a salary cap and revenue sharing, full-fledged socialism within the league is on its way. The Rams are not owned by the NFL or the other 31 owners, so the team is not theirs to sell.

Race and America

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.

But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?

To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.

It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.

But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.

The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.

Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.

Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.

And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.

The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.

During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.

Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.

Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.

Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.

I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.